theft crimes

In October 1966, nineteen-year-old Gary Duncan stopped his car on Highway 23 in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, after seeing his two younger Negro cousins talking with four white boys near a formerly all-white high school that had recently experienced racial incidents. Duncan approached the group, spoke with the white boys, encouraged his cousins to leave, and was about to drive away when a dispute arose over whether he had slapped or merely touched one of the white boys on the elbow. At his trial in the Twenty-fifth Judicial District Court of Louisiana, the white boys and a white onlooker testified that Duncan had slapped Herman Landry, while Duncan and his cousins testified that he had only touched the boy. The trial judge found Duncan guilty of simple battery beyond a reasonable doubt. Under Louisiana law, simple battery is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of two years' imprisonment and a three-hundred-dollar fine. Duncan requested a jury trial, but the trial judge denied the request because the Louisiana Constitution provides for jury trials only in cases where capital punishment or imprisonment at hard labor may be imposed. Duncan was convicted by the judge alone and sentenced to sixty days in the parish prison and a fine of one hundred fifty dollars. Duncan sought review in the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which denied his application for a writ of certiorari. He then petitioned the United States Supreme Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2), alleging that the denial of a jury trial violated his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and set the case for argument along with a related case.

The homicide occurred on board the American ship Herbert Fuller while on the high seas bound from Boston to a port in South America. The accused, Bram, served as first officer and the deceased, Charles I. Nash, served as master. The vessel sailed from Boston on July 2, 1896, carrying a cargo of lumber along with the captain's wife Laura A. Nash, passenger Lester H. Monks, second mate August W. Blomberg, a steward, and six seamen. On the night between July 13 and July 14, at approximately two o'clock, Monks was awakened by a scream and gurgling sound. He discovered the captain lying on the floor of the chart room with his cot overturned, found dark spots on Mrs. Nash's bedding, and alerted Bram on deck. The bodies of Captain Nash, Mrs. Nash, and Blomberg were later found with multiple axe wounds to the head; all three had been killed. Bram assumed command of the vessel. Brown, a seaman also known as Justus Leopold Westerberg, was initially placed in irons by the crew after suspicion arose against him. As the ship approached Halifax, Brown stated that he had seen Bram commit the murder through a window while at the wheel. The crew then overpowered and ironed Bram, who declared his innocence. The vessel arrived in Halifax on July 21, 1896, where local authorities took possession at the request of the United States consul general. While Bram remained in the custody of the Halifax chief of police, Detective Nicholas Power had him brought to Power's private office in city hall. Power stripped Bram of his clothing and, alone with him, stated that Brown had accused Bram of the murder and suggested that if Bram had an accomplice he should say so rather than bear the full blame. Bram replied that Brown could not have seen him from the wheel and that he and others on board believed Brown was the murderer. Bram was subsequently examined before the American consul, sent to Boston, indicted for the three murders, and tried and convicted on the charge of murdering Captain Nash, resulting in a death sentence and this writ of error.

The case began when eight petitioners, together with seven unindicted coconspirators and six codefendants, were tried in the Western District of Pennsylvania under a six-count indictment that alleged federal gambling offenses. Each petitioner faced charges of conspiring to violate and of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1955, a statute that makes it a federal crime for five or more persons to conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct, or own a gambling business prohibited by state law. At trial the evidence showed that the petitioners owned and operated a large-scale illegal numbers game violating state law. The jury convicted each petitioner of both the substantive offense under § 1955 and the conspiracy offense under 18 U.S.C. § 371. The trial judge then imposed sentences on both counts for every petitioner. On appeal the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the conspiracy convictions. It reversed the substantive convictions, however, because the evidence failed to prove that each petitioner had conducted a gambling business involving five or more participants. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether Wharton's Rule barred the conspiracy convictions.